. . . that the Houston Chronicle even deigns to mention Veterans Day.
Back in the day, the newspaper boycotted or mocked all American civic and religious holidays, up to and including the Fourth of July, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. Recent years have seen a welcome change. A few editorials -- notably last year's Thanksgiving essay -- have been superb. Seriously.
Today is Veterans Day, and the paper tried to do the right thing. It just couldn't pull it off. The best thing about today's piece is . . .
. . . the headline: "Salute to veterans: Gratefully, we snap to attention."
Underneath, however, are seven placeholder paragraphs that -- one welcome sentence to the contrary, maybe -- do no such thing. The awkward, tongue-tied tone of the piece tells far more about the writer and his newspaper than about veterans. It's someone, I suspect, who has never served and knows few who have.
The whole concept of a military -- a force dedicated to killing people and breaking things, if necessary, to preserve our nation and, with mixed success, to maintain the peace of the world . . . confounds the progressive sensibility. The Houston Chronicle's mixed and uncertain appreciation of the institution of the military expresses itself in a mixed and uncertain appreciation of the men and women who serve and have served.
What we get instead is an editorial cribbed from Wikipedia. It meanders through the history of the holiday ("President Wilson proclaimed . . . .") and mentions Houston's local ceremonial observances ("a fitting blend of the practical and the ceremonial").
These paragraphs do not honor veterans. They describe a holiday. It's like a stupid husband who describes his wedding anniversary -- "a day set aside to blah, blah, blah" -- but cannot say any magic words, "I loved you then and I love you more today. Thank you for marrying me."
What we want for our veterans on Veterans day is language that rings, words that ennoble, essays that valorize those who have served. But these things the Chronicle simply cannot do.
Paragraph six is an awkwark attempt to honor veterans in the only way progressives know how, which is to designate them as a victim group with "critical needs." Men and women who suffer depression and PTSD. Injured veterans, bereft of limbs and mental faculties. Critical needs that cry out for "support," meaning government programs.
Well, yes. Right. Good.
But where is the mention of honorable service? Of heroism? Of grand deeds? Of closing Hitler's death camps? Of eternal readiness for action, which held off the Soviet Union and led to its ultimate collapse? Where is the poetry? Where is the music?
What we get instead of soaring words, however, is this limp sentence: "On this Veterans Day, we pay our respects to the men and women who have served our country."
This sentence is ambiguous, deliberately so in my opinion. Who is we? If we means the editorial board, so be it. That's something.
But I rather think it means we, the people of America. We whose official observance is a fitting blend of the practical and the ceremonial. This second reading -- the better reading, in my view -- means that the editorial ends, as it begins, by describing a holiday, not honoring veterans. This is the day we -- meaning you folks we editorialists are describing -- pay your respects.
The editorial ends with the "hope . . . that one day [veterans] will cease to be treated as pawns by our politicians in matters concerning budgets and benefits."
In lieu of the kind of honor and respect that overflows the human heart and teaches our children to honor those who have served -- and to consider serving themselves -- our local newspaper prattles about the only things that matter to progressives: victims, programs, budgets.
Comments